Ema's RPG Sheet Website down...

[Mistwell]

I'm sorry. I don't know if it is because I am really tired, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

It's not just you. He went a bit stream of consciousness in that huge paragraph full of disparate run-on sentences.

 

[xechnao]

It's not just you. He went a bit stream of consciousness in that huge paragraph full of disparate run-on sentences.

And my point about what we know about the case or not is that it is not limited to the letter in question. Even if we found this letter and thus knew what was exactly in that letter, but without knowing anything else we would really have much less clues about what it would be about. It is rather a more complex, a more complicated scene, something like a puzzle. It is good if you have all the pieces, but even if you do not it does not mean that you cant see anything. It also happens that you see something and then upon finding some pieces you may be surprised.

To see as much as possible of the bigger picture of something one clue( for example what it was in the letter exactly) is not enough. You need as more clues as possible. Similarly even if you lack some clues (for example what it was in the letter exactly) you may be able to see something. Of course it may happen so that with finding more clues you might get surprised (change your opinion).

Is it better know?

 

[tomBitonti]

So I am a little unclear here. Are you saying that a software based character generator, if all it did was take 4E terms and allowed the user to select them, then based on those selections did any approrate math, and then filled in a form based on these selections, it is OK and doesn't require a license? What if the terms used were from outside what the current SRD allows?

Or are you saying this is NOT OK to do?

And if OK to do, then what happens when money is charged for it? Does that change the landscape? What if that money is donated? Does it matter?

My understanding (but hey, I'm not a lawyer) is that that would be perfectly OK, so long as you did not "fill in" the form with text (such as spell descriptions or power descriptions) verbatim (or even paraphrased -- I think you'd have to take the "by-the-rules" description of the spell or power and describe it yourself. And, you could charge for it, I don't think that makes a difference.

That all changes if you accept the terms of the license agreement (either one), in which case you agree not to do certain things, some of which I understand are very likely allowed by Copyright and Fair Use.

For example, I'm remembering that one of the clauses of the GSL forbids certain types of software products.

 

[tomBitonti]

If d20srd.org had started posting parts of the books that weren't considered OGL (like say certain spell names, or the beholder or mindflayer stats) and was sent a C&D letter would you draw the same conclusion? That WoTC was now on the warpath against online rules sites?

Can someone clarify why you can't use certain monster names and certain spell names? Is it a trademark issue, or a copyright issue?

I'm thinking about Beholder, Tenser, Leomund, among others.

Or, is the problem that you can't because of the license agreement (which forbids you to use them)?

 

[arscott]

While I have no knowledge of the details, I think this attitude is VERY dangerous.

In the software world, it is quite common for copyright holders (both of software and of data) to make absolutely outrageous claims. Hell, TSR had a history of trying to use copyright to quash discussion sites about their material, which are a pretty clear case of the review-and-critique fair use doctrine. The RIAA and MPAA send C&D letters to dead people and people who don't own computers.

(Big) companies don't send C&D's when they know they're right. They send them when they think they can win, either through air-of-authority or because they can spend more on legal fees. And, when you're talking about Massive Corp, Inc. vs Joe Shmoe, they can always win on the second one.

I've seen people and even small companies roll over to outlandish claims, just because they didn't understand what was legal, or because they couldn't afford to fight it.

So, no, I'm not willing to accept on faith that the claim was legitimate. It may have been, or it may not have been. Unless and until someone discloses the details, we simply do not know.

That's kinda beside the point, though. Sure, WotC could be sending C&D letters when they have no legal standing, but that's clearly not the case in this instance. The details we do know are that Ema committed a number of copyright and trademark violations in ways not protected by fair use--primarily using WotC Logos and Artwork, and using great quantities of verbatim text from WotC materials when he could have written his own summaries and descriptions.

Can someone clarify why you can't use certain monster names and certain spell names? Is it a trademark issue, or a copyright issue?

I'm thinking about Beholder, Tenser, Leomund, among others.

Or, is the problem that you can't because of the license agreement (which forbids you to use them)?

To the best of my knowledge, none of those names are a registered trademark. Not that important, though, because you can use trademarked names (but not logos) as long as you do so in ways that don't potentially confuse customers into thinking that you own the trademark or are affiliated with the trademark holder.

Of course, if you enter into the OGL or the GSL, then you're forbidden from using those names as a condition of the License.

So I am a little unclear here. Are you saying that a software based character generator, if all it did was take 4E terms and allowed the user to select them, then based on those selections did any approrate math, and then filled in a form based on these selections, it is OK and doesn't require a license? What if the terms used were from outside what the current SRD allows?

Or are you saying this is NOT OK to do?

And if OK to do, then what happens when money is charged for it? Does that change the landscape? What if that money is donated? Does it matter?

If you have not entered into an OGL, GSL, or STL contract in a manner that prevents you from creating such a project, then yeah, it's perfectly legal. Look at all the companies that are creating adventures for 4e without using the GSL--You're doing much the same thing, only with a computer program. Individual words or phrases such as "Dexterity" and "Armor Class" are not protected by copyright. GSL, OGL, and STL contractual obligations might limit your ability to use certain terms or even create certain products. If you're actually creating a commercial product, get legal advice from somewhere besides an internet forum

 

[mudbunny]

On the WotC boards, in a parallel discussion, this little tidbit of info that was obtained was tossed out.

Edit to add - It was Pen and Paper Games that asked the question of Ema and posted the information on their forums, which someone reposted on the WotC forums.

I recently wrote to the founder of emass-web.com to find out any further information he could share about the taking down of his site. Emass-web.com, which provided a popular and robust database for character creation, was recently taken down after Ema. the founder of the site, received a Cease & Desist letter from Wizards of the Coast. For legal reasons, he could not comment on the specifics, but he did confirm that he received a Cease & Desist letter from the legal branch of Wizards of the Coast in regards to portions of his website, and decided to shut down the site in its entirety instead of leave up something less than what he envisioned. Below is the reply I received.
"Actually, there's not much to say... I received a Cease & Desist letter from WotC legal branch.
I did what they asked, and decided to remove the site.
Am I disappointed? Well, what I'm really sorry about is that I'm not allowed to carry on what was a work of love and a source of joy in bringing something useful to the community.
Am I venomous towards WotC? Not really. They're doing their job. I respect their intellectual property, over which I never meant any harm, and I understand they try to fiercely defend it against any real or perceived threat.
Will I stop buying their products? Not at all. I love the game, it has been my favorite hobby for the last 20 years or so. I will keep on playing and DM'ing D&D just as before.
Will I develop any other RPG-related Web content? I don't know, really. In case I do, I will be extra careful to avoid stepping on anybody's toes.
So that's it.
I saw a lot of venom towards WotC flying around... as I said, they're only doing their job. While I understand you're disappointed, don't let what happened ruin your enthusiasm for the game.
I've also seen exceptionally wild speculations, from the idea that WotC could have hired me (nope, but if they ask me, I will gladly do some freelance work for them) to the incredibly-far fetched one that Scott Rouse secretly came to Italy to discuss the matter with me (not at all, but if Scott ever wants to come by I'll offer him a good margarita).
No global conspiracies, no secret deals, nothing out of the ordinary, believe me.
It's been a great time, and the messages of solidarity and appreciation I keep receiving and/or seeing on various forums fill me with pride and honor.
But - unfortunately - it had to go. As they say, "all good things must come to an end"...
Thanks,
Ema."

 

[Xyxox]

Can someone clarify why you can't use certain monster names and certain spell names? Is it a trademark issue, or a copyright issue?

I'm thinking about Beholder, Tenser, Leomund, among others.

Or, is the problem that you can't because of the license agreement (which forbids you to use them)?

You can only use the OGC under the OGL. Any other use of it constitutes a violation of copyright. The OGL specifically prohibits use of certain first person, creature, and place names.

Thus, if you do not adhere to the OGL and abide by all parts of it, you are not licensed to use any of the OGC and are in violation of the copyright on the material.

Just because it's open does not mean it isn't copyrighted.

 

[Morrus]

but he did confirm that he received a Cease & Desist letter from the legal branch of Wizards of the Coast in regards to portions of his website, and decided to shut down the site in its entirety instead of leave up something less than what he envisioned.

Well that certainly confirms what many here suspected.

 

[CharlesRyan]

"Actually, there's not much to say..." [the rest snipped for brevity]

That's a classy statement. Hat's off to Ema.

 

[catsclaw227]

That was a nice statement by Ema. I liked his site, but agree that it was wrong to keep it up in it's last incarnation. It looks like Ema decided that it was easier to just take it all down than to go through the mega hassle of removing the offending content.